[ryan $]

I have a merchant on a weekly payback where 2 weeks swift didn't take payment - I immediately think the worst, but he claims swift allows this once per contract.

Any truth or is he just a liar?

[fromano590]

It's true, I've seen e-mail chains between merchants and swift. They are just trying to lock them down so they won't stack, it makes sense in my opinion. I know some other smaller lenders that are doing the same thing.

[Karen37a]

Ive seen email chains from other companies as well.

They are trying to not just lock down the stack but also stop someone from wanting to pay it off and pull it into a new first position with another Funder.

Last Christmas they ( not that one Funder in particular...numerous ones) had "Christmas specials"

I had numerous conversations with Funders/underwriters saying " they didn't need to lower the payment they had 10k avg daily balance in their account ; they did not need to reduce the daily payments from 1000 a day by $ 50 cant you see they are doing it to hold onto their book of business "

When Merchants get an offer to lower a payment...they think its like a coupon and say "hey why not"

I stopped working with a few who didn't listen to me or look into it.
( not that they care, they will still fund millions )

[Karen37a]

Nice move on somes part....cut off the isos , offer a discount so no other funder wants the business

old school move


ill bb im off to try to grab 50 ucc data numbers from someone

[Michael I]

I have a merchant on a weekly payback where 2 weeks swift didn't take payment - I immediately think the worst, but he claims swift allows this once per contract.

Any truth or is he just a liar?

just ask for the contract

[Funder Mark]

I have seen this before, from another funder. I think more funders are going to be doing this, which means underwriters are going to have to decide if this will be an automatic deal killer in the future.

[WestCoastFunding]

I've seen this from Swift before. They don't seem to mind doing this stuff and making adjustments. Best part about it: it helps protects themselves because when the merchant goes to stack, the next funder may be scared off because of the missed and/or reduced payment.

Anyway, if Swift finds out these guys stacked they're gonna hit the merchant with a nice size penalty, because they usually have a no-stacking addendum. They don't play with when it comes to that.

[Esteban2000]

This is legit. Swift is a good company, and this is a good business practice in some cases.

[Karen37a]

I said sometimes its not about stacking...its about paying off the 1st position ...NET 50 and moving to another funder

the underwriters have to determine if it was a casual drop in payment or a severe risk or purposeful maneuvering to scare off new 1st position offers


some of us didnt run a massive stacking business ...we net 50 and consolidated and put the merchants need ahead of our own commission.

Then renewed or did add ons when the Funders said it was time.

Hence the low default ratios and high % of renewals/addons 90%

while being yelled at

[ryan $]

I've seen this from Swift before. They don't seem to mind doing this stuff and making adjustments. Best part about it: it helps protects themselves because when the merchant goes to stack, the next funder may be scared off because of the missed and/or reduced payment.

Anyway, if Swift finds out these guys stacked they're gonna hit the merchant with a nice size penalty, because they usually have a no-stacking addendum. They don't play with when it comes to that.

Merchant already has a 2nd Position on Swift. Looking to take Over 2nd. Or put a split on Credit Cards (Which was a recent 3rd that ended few weeks back)